Honest Lawyer, Bellevue Street 1869 - 2004

Honest Lawyer, 1978

Honest Lawyer, Date Unknown. Photo kindly supplied by Martin Easdown

Former Honest Lawyer, May 2012

 

Honest Lawyer, 1920s. Credit Peter & Anne Bamford

Honest Lawyer, 2000. Credit Martin Easdown

 

 

Licensees

Thomas Edwards 1869 1889 From Clarendon Hotel

Thomas Maple 1889 1901

Harry Johnson 1901 1905

Robert Spratt 1905 1907

Richard Godden Taylor 1907 1911

Thomas Adams 1911 1912

George Hubbard 1912 1915

Charlotte Hubbard 1915 1932

Ernest Jeffrey 1932 1949

Ernest George Jeffrey 1949 1953

Sidney Taylor 1953 1955

George Raynor 1955 1979

David Haines 1979 1981 Licence Suspended 1981-83

Malcolm Hannon 1983 1989 Also Clarendon Hotel 1984-85

Albert Worrell 1989 1994

Stanley Richards and Leandre Ramsden 1994 1995

David Harryman and Stanley Richards 1995 1996 Stanley Richards From Princess Royal

David Harryman and Carole Harryman 1996 1998 Closed 1998-99

Jacqueline Sully 1999 1999 Closed Permanently 2004

Folkestone Observer 11-9-1869

Wednesday, September 8^th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt, A.M. Leith and W. Bateman Esqs.

Beerhouse Licenses

License was granted to Thomas Edwards, Bellevue Fields

Folkestone Chronicle 4-10-1873

Wednesday, October 1^st: Before The Mayor, J. Clarke and J. Tolputt Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day

The following house was qualified by rating according to the Wine and Beerhouse Act:

Thomas Edwards, The Honest Lawyer

Folkestone Express 4-10-1873

Adjourned Licensing Meeting

Tuesday, September 30^th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

The Honest Lawyer

Thomas Edwards renewed his application for a license to the Honest Lawyer beerhouse, Bellevue Fields. The application was adjourned from the annual meeting in consequence of a question as to the annual value of the premises.

Mr. Banks said the annual value of the house was £19 10s.

Mr. Till opposed on behalf of Mr. Dickenson, and said he did not think the Bench had any power to grant the license, as the Act required that in a town of not less than ten thousand inhabitants the annual value must be £20.

The Clerk remarked that the Superintendent opposed it at the annual meeting.

Mr. Banks said applicant occupied the house next door to the beerhouse, and the total value would be £34. If notice had been given of the opposition a solicitor would have been employed to support the application.

Mr. Till said the opposition was made on principle. He claimed the right to make the application and argue upon it. With reference to the adjoining house, the Bench must be satisfied that it was to be used for the purposes of a public house. Applicant could not knock a hole through and then say “I occupy the whole”.

The Clerk said applicant could have said he had no notice of the opposition and the Bench would have had power to adjourn the application.

Mr. Till said he was sorry, he must entirely disagree with the clerk. If the next house were worth a thousand pounds the Act would not allow the Bench to grant the license.

Application granted.

Folkestone Express 4-9-1875

Saturday, August 28^th: Before J. Tolputt Esq., and Captain Crowe

George Deronor, a private in the 41^st Regiment of Foot, stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with stealing nineteen plated forks, value £3, the property of Mr. Alfred Cosley, lodging house keeper, of 10, Langhorne Gardens, on the 26^th August.

Thomas Edwards, landlord of the Honest Lawyer beerhouse, Bellevue Street, deposed that on the previous Thursday evening the prisoner came to his house about a quarter to eleven and asked for a glass of beer. Witness drew one, when prisoner said he had no money. He drew some forks from under his jacket and asked witness to take them in payment for the beer as he had no money. When the prisoner laid them on the counter, witness saw they were plated forks, but did not count them. Prisoner took them up again and left the house, when witness gave information to the police.

P.C. Abraham Keeler said that on Thursday night about a quarter to eleven he saw the prisoner standing in front of the Honest Lawyer beerhouse in Bellevue Street. Just before witness came up, prisoner turned away and walked up the street. Witness noticed that he was putting something under his tunic and asked him what it was. Prisoner replied “It`s all right. These are mine”. Witness then saw some forks sticking out of prisoner`s tunic and asked him how he came by them. He replied “It was all through that cook”. Witness asked what cook he meant, when prisoner replied that he did not know where she lived. Witness then took the soldier into custody and removed from the breast of his tunic the nineteen plated forks produced. On Friday morning witness took the forks to No. 10, Langhorne Gardens, and showed them to Mrs. Cowley, who identified the forks as her property.

Mary Nash, cook at prosecutor`s, deposed that on Thursday evening about a quarter past nine she was standing at the top of the steps leading to the area of No. 10, Langhorne Gardens. Prisoner spoke to her, saying “Good evening”, and afterwards asked if she would give him her address. She replied that she would not. Prisoner said he should not go away till she had given him her address. She then said her name was Nash, but he answered that that was not enough. Witness went indoors, leaving the door open and prisoner at the top of the steps. Witness heard the prisoner come down the steps after her and went into the breakfast room. Witness looked back through the window and saw prisoner at the back door. She asked him if he was going as she wanted to lock the back door. He then went up the steps and witness fastened the door and saw no more of him. Witness afterwards missed the forks, which had been that evening lying in the plate basket in the kitchen.

Prisoner elected to be tried by the Magistrates and was sentenced to three calendar months` imprisonment with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 17-3-1877

Wednesday, March 14^th: Before Dr. Bateman, R.W. Boarer Esq., and Alderman Caister.

Alfred Foreman was summoned by Herbert Grinstead for assaulting him on Sunday night. The defendant pleaded Guilty.

The complainant stated that while he was in the Honest Lawyer public house on Sunday night, the defendant, who was drunk, came up to him and challenged him to fight. The complainant refused, and the defendant struck him in the face. He had known the defendant for some time, and never had had “words” with him.

The Bench fined the defendant 5s. and 8s. costs, or in default seven days` imprisonment.

Folkestone Chronicle 29-12-1888

Saturday, December 22^nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward, J. Hoad, and J. Holden Esqs.

Richard Back, landlord of the New Inn, Dover Road, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Belle Vue Street on the night of the 15^th  December.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant and pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Wm. Knott said he was on duty in Belle Vue Street on Saturday night, a few minutes before eleven. He saw the defendant there. He was very drunk and using bad language. When he saw witness he said “I don`t want to show any of you ---- up, and I don`t want you to round on me, because I`ve got all you ---- under my thumb”. Witness walked away. About ten minutes past eleven witness was at the other end of Belle Vue Street and heard the landlord of the Honest Lawyer public house ask the company to leave. Witness looked in and told them that the time was up. They all came out, the defendant being the last one to leave. He said to witness “I want you to take all these ---- names”, and continued to shout about. Defendant had a glass of beer in his hand. He threw it down on the pavement and said “Take my name first”. Witness asked him to go away, but he refused. A few minutes afterwards two of his friends took him away.

By Mr. Minter: There were about fifteen men in the street at the time. Most of them came out of the Honest Lawyer. Witness supposed the defendant wanted him to take the names of those who left the house because it was beyond the time. The defendant kept a public house a little lower down. Witness had spoken to him once about keeping his house open a little beyond time. Witness had been in the police force about four months.

Mr. Minter: The defendant was angry, was he not?

Witness: He was very drunk. I can`t say whether he was angry or not. I don`t know his disposition.

What time was it when you first saw him?

A few minutes before eleven.

He has got two bars close there, hasn`t he?

Yes. When I first saw him he was going from one to the other.

Chas. Prior, living at 5, Belle Vue Street, was then called in support of the charge. He stated that he was standing in the street last Saturday night about eleven o`clock when he saw the defendant come up the street from his house. He was rather the worse for drink. He went into the Honest Lawyer and called for a glass of beer. When he got outside he dropped the glass on the pavement. Witness did not hear him make use of bad language, nor was he disorderly in the street.

Mr. Minter, in addressing the Bench for the defence, remarked that he had thought of charging the constable with making a false statement. The witness Prior whom he had called to support him had not rendered him any assistance, but, on the other hand, had stated that the defendant was not disorderly, that he did not hear him make use of bad language, and that he was a little the worse for drink. That, he considered, put an end to the disorderly conduct, and the legal adviser of the Bench would tell that they could not convict upon one portion of the charge alone, viz., drunkenness. He thought the Bench would clearly see that the police had been rather severe upon the defendant about closing his house, whilst they were not particular about his neighbours. Mr. Back felt that he was not being dealt with fairly, and no doubt on the night in question he felt angry and went into the Honest Lawyer after eleven and wanted the constable to take the names of those people in the house. The defendant had instructed him to say that he had never been drunk in his life, and challenged anyone to deny it. He had kept the New Inn, where nightly concerts were held, for fifteen years, and had never had a conviction or a complaint against him. He would call some witnesses who would prove that the defendant was not drunk, and would ask the Bench to dismiss the case.

Mrs. Hogan, whose professional name was Nellie Mackney, said she was a singer, and had been engaged at the New Inn for a fortnight. She sang at the house nightly. On the night in question the house was closed about two minutes to eleven. Witness was at the house from about a quarter to seven until five and twenty minutes to eleven, and saw the landlord from time to time during the evening. He was quite sober and serving in the bar upstairs.

John Hogan, husband of the last witness, and a music hall artist, said he had been engaged at the New Inn for the past fortnight. He had had previous engagements there. Had never seen the defendant drunk. Witness saw him in the upper bar from seven until about eleven. He was quite sober then.

Mr. Minter said he could call six other witnesses of the Bench thought it necessary to call them.

The Mayor said the Bench did not consider the charge proved, and dismissed the case.

Folkestone Express 29-12-1888

Saturday, December 22^nd: Before The Mayor, J. Hoad, J. Fitness, J. Holden, J. Sherwood and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Richard Back, landlord of the New Inn, was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in Belle Vue Street on the 15^th Dec.

P.C. Knott said on Saturday the 15^th inst. he saw defendant in Belle Vue Street, very drunk and using bad language. When he saw witness he said “I have got everything all right tonight. I don`t want to show any of you ---- up” and used other bad language. Witness was in the Honest Lawyer at five minutes past eleven, and heard the landlord ask the company to leave. He went in and told them the time was up. Defendant was the last to leave, and when he came out he said he wanted witness to take all their names, and again used very bad language. He asked defendant to go away, and he refused. Two friends took him home.

Mr. Minter cross-examined the witness, who said he did not know whether defendant was angry or not. He was very drunk.

Charles Prior, a plasterer, living in Belle Vue Street, said he saw the defendant on Saturday night, rather the worse for drink. He went into Mr. Edwards` and called for a glass of beer. He brought the glass out and dropped it. He heard him use no bad language.

In reply to the Clerk, the Superintendent said “That is the case”.

Mr. Minter: And a very pretty case it is. (Laughter) He contended that the cause of all the disturbance was a quarrel between defendant and the policeman, because the latter had not dealt out fair play to himself and the landlord of the Honest Lawyer. He further alleged that the defendant had never been drunk in his life. He had carried on the business for 15 years, and during all that time there had been no charge against him by the police.

Nellie Hogan, a music hall singer, engaged at the New Inn Music Hall, said she had sung at the music hall at the New Inn for a fortnight. She left the house on Saturday evening at twenty five minutes to eleven. She saw the landlord frequently during the evening and he was quite sober and serving in the bar.

John Hogan, “a music hall artist”, engaged at the New Inn, said he saw the defendant the evening in question from seven till eleven. He was sober when he closed the house. Witness had never seen him drunk.

Mr. Minter said he had half a dozen more witnesses to prove the same thing.

The Bench dismissed the case.

Folkestone Chronicle 13-7-1889

Wednesday, July 10^th: Before J. Pledge and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Thomas Marples was granted temporary authority to sell beer at the Honest Lawyer, Bellevue Street.

Folkestone Express 13-7-1889

Wednesday, July 10^th: Before J. Pledge and E.T. Ward Esqs.

Thomas Marples was granted temporary authority to sell beer at the Honest Lawyer, Bellevue Street.

Folkestone Express 26-12-1891

Wednesday, December 23^rd: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitness and E. Ward Esqs.

Iden Pritchard, gardener, was summoned for stealing two heath plants, value 2s., from a greenhouse belonging to George Pilcher. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Prosecutor, a florist, having premises in Dover Road, said defendant had been in his employment as working gardener for more than 18 months. He left a week ago last Saturday. Since defendant left he had missed plants from his premises, and among them were three heaths of the kind produced, from a greenhouse. He missed the heaths on Friday, 18^th. Defendant was in the house on the Wednesday or Thursday previous, saying he wanted to buy some shrubs, but he went away without buying anything. When he missed the plants he gave information to the police. There were nine plants of this sort in the greenhouse. He could swear positively to one of those produced, as it was peculiar in it`s appearance, and he had tried to sell it to a customer a few days ago. They were also of an uncommon size to be flowering so freely. The value was 1s. each.

By defendant: I bought twelve plants of a nurseryman, and sold three. The nurseryman had plenty more of the same sort, and he served the trade. The greenhouses were not kept locked. I have had reasons to suspect you have taken goods. You were formerly a very useful man, but latterly you have given way to drink and been careless. I do not remember having given you a good recommendation lately.

Alice Maud Mary Jordan, of the Red Cow Inn, said the defendant went to her mother`s house on Thursday with Christmas Trees and two plants. She recognised one of the heaths. Defendant asked her to buy it, and she did, paying 9d. for it. She knew defendant as a customer.

Mary Ann Maple, wife of Thomas Maple, of the Honest Lawyer, Belle Vue Street, said the defendant went to that house with one plant on Thursday evening. He asked 1s. for it, and she bought it of him for 6d. She knew him as a customer.

William Jenner, a lad in the service of the prosecutor, said he saw the defendant on Wednesday evening at ten minutes to ten, outside the garden gate in Dover Road, walking to and from.

Thomas Alfred Tutt, another lad in the prosecutor`s employ, said he saw the defendant about ten o`clock on Wednesday evening go into the Belle Vue with a Christmas tree in his hand. Witness saw him again on Thursday evening near St. John Street with a plant like those produced in his hand.

Prosecutor was re-called, and said the garden was approached by gates. The larger one was locked, but not the smaller one. Mr. Wilson had a right of way to his premises there. The greenhouse was not fastened in any way.

Defendant said he bought the plants from a hawker, but did not know his name.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined defendant 10s., 2s. the value of the plants, and 18s. costs, or 14 days` hard labour, telling him he was liable to be imprisoned for six months.

The Bench recommended Mr. Pilcher to keep his premises locked in future.
 

Folkestone Herald 19-2-1898

Felix

I was strolling through St. Peter`s Street recently, and I noticed that a certain inn in that locality is called the Honest Lawyer. Why is this? This particular Honest Lawyer appears to be a well conducted place, but it occurred to me “What could have induced the owners of the hostelry to fix on this peculiar title?” Again, I say, why the Honest Lawyer? Why not the honest doctor, baker, clotier, butcher, printer, and so on?

Are not all lawyers honest? Why should the inference be thrown out, as it is in this case, that the great quality is scarce in the ranks of legal profession? At any rate in Folkestone we look upon our solicitors as the very acme of probity and honour. Whoever heard of one of their number ever having their bill of costs before the Taxing Master? I pause for a reply.

I suppose there is a reason why this particular house should be dubbed the Honest Lawyer, but I am not in a position to supply it. We know hard things have been said against the great profession, and that even the singer of the old comic song asked the question “Can a monkey climb a tree? Can a lawyer take his fee?”

Of course he can take his fee, and why on Earth shouldn`t he as well as a workman, or any member of the other great professions?

Here, then, is a suggestion. We know genial Mr. Frederic Hall is always open for a diversion. Then, why not let him call his legal brethren together, and suggest that a lawyers` smoking concert or a leg of mutton banquet should be held up at that old fashioned house in St. Peter`s Street? The assembled gentlemen could then and there interview Boniface and suggest to him that henceforward the sign should be altered to that of “The Honest Lawyers”. Then the legal profession would be saved from a slur, and fashionable Folkestone relieved from a smutch on her escutcheon.